Main Page

Recent Posts

Facebook is 3 things: bad interface, bad management, and biased policies. I want a social network that gives me control of what I see and share -- both to my friends and to advertisers. I realize they need to make a buck, and my information is their product, but the point is you can still give users the illusions of control. But Zuckerberg seems to have falling into the egocentric pit that many young billionaires do, they think because they timed things well, and worked hard, and got lucky that they're smarter than everyone else. This makes them arrogant, less mature, and slower to grow than the average human: Dunning-Kruger, inflated by being surrounded by yes-men.

There are many people who claim the AR-15 bullets (the .223) are uniquely deadly, or that you can get shot one place and have it exit somewhere else, and other myths propagate by FakeNews outlets like The Atlantic or NYT.

Some of these rumors were created by the military to make the troops more comfortable with using a gun that was far less powerful than the AK-47's they our troops were facing, and much weaker than the hunting rifles they had used at home. But sometimes weaker is better. Wounded soldiers cost more resources than dead ones, and lighter guns/rounds are easier to carry and shoot: and that's why the military chose it. But the facts are that.223 isn't even the most powerful varmint round, and is one of the weakest of the rifle rounds. It is so weak that it can't be used to hunt deer or larger game in many states. Anyone trying to sell this AR-15 bullets are more deadly than other rifle bullets, is either a fool or a propagandist. And if they're a media organization with a single fact-checker, you know which one.

Anyone that says any variant of "Just ban assault rifles", "no one should own military grade weapons", or "it's not all guns, just these killing machines" shows they are completely ignorant about assault rifles, or bans. This article breaks down why you can't ban "Assault Rifles", and why it would be moronic to try.

The first Marvel film of 2018. I was almost scared off by the SJW's and BLM types ranting about how groundbreaking this was, or saying retarded things like the first Black Superhero film (other than all the others). The more they hyped it, the more I wanted to skip it over concerns it was going to be filled with Afrocentrist stupidity.

But I did see it, and despite having a bit of Superhero burn-out, it wasn't bad, and slightly fresh and only a little shallow. I thought it was definitely in the top 1/3rd of Marvel films, about equal to Thor: Ragnarok. Though Black Panther took itself a lot more seriously than funny.

After every mass shooting (especially School shootings), there's the hue and cry, "this happened again, we have to do something!" They usually don’t say what, and the few who do, usually aren't very informed on the topic. So let's tear it down and look at what we should do, and should not do, and what people are asking for. And understand why were are likely to stay divided between gun controllers and those with a clue.

Republicans (and Sarah Palin) started using the term "Death Panels" to describe part of the ACA, where a panel of 15 (called IPAB) could make life and death decisions over what treatments would be covered or not (which would control costs). Of course the left all called that untrue, but accounted for the savings these panels would bring by denying care, and far left places like Politifact called this the lie of the year in 2009. Then they screamed again when those panels that never existed were eliminated in 2018.

Imagine in an alternate universe that Elon Musk was a visionary, and wanted to change the world to use electric cars, how would he have gone about it? I can tell you, that reality looks nothing like the Tesla as it exists today. (These are a collection of ideas I had, from the first time that Elon claimed he wanted to change the industry (circa 2003), but it became obvious that he really didn't mean it).

No rational economist will argue against the idea that if you cut someone's taxes, that they have more money. And that resulting increase in earnings will either be actively invested, saved (passively invested), or spent. And if they do any of those, that money is passed through into the economy: in other words, it trickles out (and down). Period. End.

Now there can be intelligent debates on what helps the economy more: cutting or spending, cutting at the top or the bottom. But liars (polemics, fools and the media), will perverts that debate on what helps more, into some fraud that cutting taxes at the top "doesn't work at all".

I saw some silliness about how the current bull market has nothing to do with '45 (Trump). That to me is as dumb as giving him all the credit. Presidents can either (a) create headwinds on growth (raise taxes, regulations, energy costs) (b) put tailwinds on growth (decrease taxes, regulations, and lower energy costs through encouraging drilling/pipelines). That can be swamped by other factors, but they are a known variable in the equations -- and they do have SOME ability to influence markets.

I don't care how people vote, or who they like or not. Love or hate Trump anyways, whatever. But I do care about the truth, and the truth is that Trumponomics has done more positive for the economy than Obamanomics did.

The other day, I went and got my CCW (License To Carry a Concealed Weapon). Well, technically, I took the class to get my CCW, and have filled out my forms (it'll be a couple months before I get them back). And since I'm in the People's Republic of California, I only took the classes for the other ≈40 or so states (in Free America) that respect the Constitution and 2nd Amendment (called shall issue states): those silly rules don't apply in California, unless we get national reciprocity, then they'll secede. Still, it was an experience that I figured I'd share.

Democrats leaked to the Democrat Press (WaPo), that Trump used the term "Shithole" to refer to a few countries (that are shitholes), while in the immigration debate. Then both hypocritically made a stink about a nothingburger for many many days of 24/7 coverage, while ignoring all the important points. There's deeper issues here, but the mocking of the term (or the defense of it), just divided us on partly lines because making stink over Trump's style (and what the Dem side did too), isn't going to persuade anyone who doesn't already hate Trump of anything. The thinkers will be outraged at what's went on behind the curtain of FakeNews and histrionics.

Twitter is an enemy of free speech and tolerance. Examples include them shadow banning conservatives (and admitting it, on-tape), some of their employees getting excited about violating their members privacy (assuming those members are conservatives/Trump), and how they suppressed anti-Hillary tweets during the election. That's scarily Orwellian.

The Girl with Seven Names: A North Korean Defector’s Story, is a really good book about a spoiled girl (with 2 more names than I have), from North Korea, who selfishly and irresponsibly escapes from North Korea, and gets astonishingly lucky in the whole process. Then creates a better life for herself, convinces her family to leave, and burns down any opportunity for them to stay or go back to the oppressive regime.

While it is a bit of a narcissists tale of suffering, we were all narcissists at her age. And despite her being brash (not thinking ahead) and suffering consequences for her recklessness (including to those around her), it is still wonderfully eye opening to see North Korea, Korean culture, and the world through the eyes of a teenage girl, who slowly learns how lucky she has been (though the bigger hardships of those around her). And where would the world be, if there were at least some silly/brash kids risking everything to have a better life?

Trump tweeted the truth (obnoxiously, as always), the left lost their minds. Just another day in the upside-down.

I have no problem thinking Trump is a big-mouthed bombast, that's going to respond to every provocation. But that's a duh! He's a realityTV star, with a NY-attention-hog personality. So not liking the style is fine... just remember, that's just style (not substance). But now let's use our thinking brains and dive into the realities of this.

DirecTV gave me a free 4K movies to watch and home (with limited choices), and this was one of them. My wife said her Aunt thought this was one of the best books, "she'd ever read". So we tried it. It was overpriced. A rom-com survival film, with not a shred of comedy or believability, pounding every cliché into the ground with awkward acting and dialog, which left me bored and feeling like I'd survived something harrowing, by making it to the syrupy abrupt ending.

Robert Reich the 3rd (or the 3rd Reich), seems to be a German with Napoleon Syndrome, and pick the wrong side of every issue. The charm of Rosie O'Donnell, the wit of Nancy Pelosi, and the balance of Michael Moore, if I want a moral compass, I use him for his knack to always point due south. This article details a small fraction of his stupidity and dishonesty.

Phobias and Anxiety: That which does not destroy us makes us stronger... but given the choice, I might opt for a little more weakness.

I learned a lot about phobias and anxiety the hard way. I was a precocious kid and early adult, and then something snapped. It helped me learn first hand what these things are, and are not. These are just my views, based on those experiences. I am not a psychologist but because of my experiences I've read quite a bit on the subject. I am hope that explaining some of these experiences will help others with "phobias" recognize what they are, or help those who know people with "phobias" to understand them a little better.

Many people have never broken a limb. I'm not one of them. My left arm seems to like to snap like a twig. I've broken it five times. No, it isn't weak, and I don't have osteoporosis or brittle bone disease - I actually just do dumb things or get unlucky, and sometimes both. These are my stories.

In an desolate federal reserve the size of South Carolina, the state and locals wanted to drill on 3 square miles of deserted frozen wasteland tundra, in the middle of fucking nowhere (20 million acres of inaccessible nothingness). And the thought that other people might be doing something productive to get us off foreign oil, miles away from anywhere, was too much for the left to handle. They created a misleading ads showing majestic mountains or fertile rivers (that were 500 miles away), having nothing to do with the area we're talking about. They screamed about the caribou and polar bears, again, which had nothing to do with the area we were discussing. Obama promised "all of the above" energy, then obstructed this for 8 years. Once a non oil-obstructionist was elected (Trump), it was allowed months later -- which will result in less foreign energy dependence, cheaper gas, and more jobs.

Everyone is biased, I'm open about mine, so that people can decide if I'm right in spite of them, or where I go wrong (if they disagree).

It started in 5th grade, when I learned early that the School textbooks and teachers were indoctrinating me with lies (spin). The Italian part of my family was dominant, and that was the normal operating behavior: believe your own lies (self delusion), and repeat them to others until they believe them too (it didn't help that many were in sales). Then I noticed it in movies, TV, books, and Newspapers. The more I looked into everything I was being told, sold or cajoled on, the more bullshit and bias I became aware of. So cynical skepticism (distrust of what I'm told) was ingrained early, often, and imperfect skepticism served me well in most topics I dived into.

I have no problems with social experiments. I just want honest accounting of them. My Mayor (Sam Liccardo) got people to sponsor "tiny homes" (garden sheds) for the homeless on public lands, at about about 5x the cost per unit (≈$70K each) as it would cost an individual. Which I find compassionate to the homeless, and cruel to the taxpayers.

We know that's likely to bring crime, disease, and detritus to our community, suppress property values, and is less economically efficient than any alternatives... and it will probably attract more homeless to come here (for the free housing, etc). But it gets Sam free press, and that's what's important, right?

Net Neutrality is a Mao suit, or the idea of "mail neutrality": one same fee for mailing a letter or a 100 lb package, no matter the distance. One price fits all. We had no net neutrality for the first 60+ years of networking, the Obama admin invents a few "regulations" in 2015 to protect us from imaginary demons under the bed and non-problems that weren't happening, and people act like repeal of that will be end of days? I'm not buying it.

Going back to those libertarian cowboy era of 2015, is unlikely to end freedom on the web, or be anything that anyone notices. And if Comcast/ATT/etc do something that gets on consumers nerves, THEN we can regulate in a far more targeted way that claiming government should control what can browse to "protect us" from evil telcos.

They say Republicans think Democrats are dumb, while Democrats think Republicans are evil. But why? The answer is surprisingly easy.

Democrat know they want to help people, so they think anyone who doesn't like their ideas on how to do so must be evil.

Republicans know they want to help people -- so when Democrats call them evil (or greedy, racist, etc), and they know better and that Democrats can't accept that, then they know that Democrats are just stupid.

So Republicans know Democrats are dumb, because Democrats think Republicans are evil.

"Gropegate" is a completely overloaded term, since the most popular way to slander a political opponent in recent years, is to accuse them of sexual harassment.. then trounce out one or more Women with claims ranging from "he said something that they felt was to sexually forward", to "he used his position to intimidate me into sleeping with him", all the way to various kinds of rape to slur their integrity. Thus there is no "one" gropegate -- there's Clinton, Schwarzenegger, Trump ("grabbing pussy" comments on tape, or specifically one of the women on a plane that said he did it to her), everyone in Hollywood, the media, and all those that helped them.

Roy Moore is the Republican nominee in Alabama for a U.S. Senate seat, in a highly contested race. He's run multiple campaigns for decades, with nothing coming to light, until after Harvey Weinstein scandal made sexual harassment into the career ending activity du jour. The left hates him with a blind seething passion for his positions against Gay Marriage, and for the 10 commandments, and for switching from their party, and WaPo timed a hit piece to do the most damage it could to him, and to help the DNC. I wouldn't vote for a Judge that puts his ego above the law (as it appears Moore has), but the important question is whether the allegations are true, or just true enough for WaPo's quality standards.

I'm not a cunning linguist, nor a middle eastern expert -- but my Dad is Iranian and Muslim, as is 1/2 my family, and being "not from here" means I've been more observant of different cultures than most.

When you say "Fuck you" to someone, it rarely means want to copulate with them. And when middle easterners say some phrases like Death to America", it probably shouldn't be literally translated either. While other phrases like "Allahu Ahbar", should probably be parsed quite carefully, and noted in context. Those that don't, are probably trying to propagandize you on something, like the NYT or CNN does.

The idea of White Privilege is to pretend that Jaden Smith, or Barack Obama's kids, have fewer opportunities than some poor, white, son-of-meth-head does, by nature of skin color. Of course that's complete bullshit. The facts are that many black individuals will have far more opportunities than many white ones, and many black sub-groups well outperform many white-sub-groups. Asians outperform whites. Black immigrants outperform both the black and white national averages, because they're not handicapped with black gang-culture. So while there is some minor burden of color, they are far outweighed by individual or sub-group advantages. Thus the people that repeat the fallacy of "white privilege" are either racists, idiots, or racist idiots -- none with a clue on the way the real world works.

A never great News Agency has become a shadow of their former self: admittedly biased by their own Ombudsman and editors, as well as exposed confessions. They still have occasionally good content, but that can't make up for their more frequent bad, or their willingness to deceive, commit lies of omission, or present things in a biased way.

If a Chinese Production company, watched too much Jack Bauer (24) and too many American Revenge films, then made an action movie about that happening with the IRA in the UK, this is exactly what that movie would look like.

Some movies hold up better as a memory, than in rewatching them. Blade runner did that for me. It wasn't bad, and was iconic for its day. But it's nearly 2019 and I'm not sure how they thought we were going to advance that fast, or how mega-buildings would look 50 years old, only 27 years in the future. It was also wrong on a lot of futurism. But it's both entertaining for its day, and a great story and visual today. If you don't mind a bit of noir. The sequel (2049) took all the worst parts of the first (plodding, dark, self-indulgent: visually and plot-wise), with none of the freshness. It was an hour longer than it needed to be. So while won't be the worst movie I see all year, it won't break the top 20 either.

Progressives seem unhappy when anyone else is happy and not waving their flags of anti-patriotism. They see some injustice in the world (real or imagined) and they feel compelled to lecture and spoil anyone else's good time. Nothing demonstrates this more than the recent politicization of sports -- with the completely expected consequences that this alienates enough of the audience, to ruin it for everyone.

The dumbest phrases in the English language often begin with "you probably think...".

When someone begins with that phrase, I usually give them a warning, and if it happens again, I block them.

What that phrase actually means is, "I don't know what you think, and I don't care or I would ask you, I just want to grandstand and tell others what you think... because what you actually think is probably beyond my ability to argue with". Because if they cared about what I thought, or they had any interest in an actual conversation or growth, they would ask me what I thought and try to engage, instead of trying to disengage and provoke, by telling others what they think I think.

When people can't refute the points made, their ego often demands a response. Since they don't have an intelligent one, they let loose their inner child, and attack either the source or the author. I get that a lot. I take it as a compliment. It means my arguments are so well formed that they can't find a better response than claiming something silly, like, "iGeek looks like Wikipedia, but is biased", or "who is that guy", and so on. It's cute, like watching a 5 year old (their emotional bretheren) throwing a tantrum on the toy/candy aisle because Mommy won't buy them something they want".

You've seen the story line so many times, you know it by heart. Mitch Rapp loves his fiancé, who is killed by terrorists in front of his eyes (if this is a spoiler, you haven't watched the trailer). So of course he decides to become the baddest mo-fo in the world to get them back. You can practically hear "Eye of the Tiger" playing, while he's doing one-handed clap pushups and beating people up in his MMA classes. Then CIA Deputy Director is impressed by his moxy, and so brings him into a super-secret double-good special ops group, under the tutelage of Stan Hurley (Michael Keaton). And you know Stan is good, because he doesn't fear liability lawsuits when he disregards all common sense safety practices, like playing with live ammo and real knives. Lastly, they're going after a super-duper good ghost, who has to be Hurley's ex-protige.

While discussing progressive "solutions" the other day, someone said my problem was that I saw government as a zero sum game. Where every dollar you used to help one person, came from the pocket of someone else, so there could never be a net win for society. I explained that it is much worse than that: when government is involved, because there's overhead, waste, fraud, work rules, politics, and other things that dissolve efficiency, freedom, pride and value, as part of the transaction, it is always a negative-sum (lose-lose) game. That isn't to say there aren't winners, there's just always far more losers: because of how the system works.

For each $1.00 New Jersey gets back from the fed, they have to give the fed $1.64, they have to pay $.18 in compliance costs, and the government borrows about $.81 of that dollar, and sticks New Jersey with the debt obligation. On top of that, federal work-rules and controls means that dollar is actually only about as effective as $.60 would be if it was under local or private hiring practices.

Progressives see the $.60 of real value as a net win. Anyone else, can see that you paid about $2.63 to get it.

Progressives think you can make it up in volume: if you just continued to lose $2.00 for each $.60 of value you get out of the system, you'd eventually come out ahead. Non-progressives recognize the seen versus the unseen (The Broken Window Fallacy) and the $2.00 of hurt you did, for each $.60 in help.

There was a comment that Democrats are "learning" to hate God, and that's a danger to them both morally and politically. But it's much worse than that. The party of identity politics (that divides us for votes) has not come to this behavior recently. They decided long ago, that if the establishment believes X, it must be wrong (unless they're the establishment). And the other side is worthy of contempt and mocking, while proclaiming their sides superior tolerance, political correctness and respect. And nothing demonstrates this more than the Hunky Jesus Contest.

One of the best movies, I've seen all year. (I caught this on HBO in 2017).

It's a bit of a downer, using tragedy to remind people of what's important in life -- but the messages are beautiful and on-target, if you can handle a movie that's showing the human spirit through the trials that life (and death) throws at it, and a child's shock and frustrations at the powerless of human condition.

I sometimes call myself a radical centrist. It's not because I like playing devil's advocate for the sake of being argumentative, it's that many people see the world in extremes: their way or the wrong way. Thus when people are arguing a cartoon version of the world (the U.S. or a President is always wrong/right), I just want to point out that it's a lot more nuanced than that -- and usually they respond with a reductio ad absurdum response, "if you're not completely against X, then I must be for it" (or vise versa). I wish the world that was that simple, but it isn't. North Korea is the perfect example of that.

There’s an oft repeated lie, that the Affordable Care Act (ACA / Obamacare) was modeled after a Republican plan. People that say this are either liars, DNC mouthpieces, or people completely unaware of the actual facts and are just repeating what they’ve been told by DNC mouthpieces. This debunks that tripe.